There is no point to this thread, just random discussion. Let's see how long before the mods ban me.

The first rule: I shall not impose, only express. In accordance I shall only mention "me" "I" and never "we" or "us". A fundamental flaw in self inspection is to assume that all humanity, or at the very least, most humanity shares my inclinations and dispositions.

action is some such thing that is momentarily deemed worth effort to bring satisfaction to desire. desire is some such thing that is momentarily an alignment with self. though self is complicated, a set of rules that I contain within myself, a set of rules that is to be perceived and interpreted at any given moment. as such that interpretation, as neitzsche put it, is constantly subject to change as whichever power holds sovereignty within my self changes.

often a definition is pursued and assumed to be eternal, but rarely are these things eternal. I imagine that within our self is a vast system where a billion points line up ever which way at any given moment to determine a desire.

A moment of clarity, that is what I live for, that is what is most important to me. As I am of little faith, such moments are rare to me, and of the many moments that I have experienced, I later revisit them and find doubt.

A list then, not chronological but whichever comes to mind first, from clarity to doubt. Only containing the most recent transformations of ideas, paradigm shifts if you will.

I think therefore I am. -> I think and I think I am.

God is such an entity that, if exists, cannot be grasped. It may be defined but never realistically and in all seriousness defined as the willy-nilly gods portrayed within religion. For example it may be defined as the source of all existence. For I am here and then begs the question, from whence I cometh? My mother's womb I am told but then what of matter? From whence matter cometh?

If it grows so difficult to answer such a question, perhaps I should question the very existence itself. Do I exist? Does anything exist? There are atoms, sure, and I know of these atoms because I am told that it is possible to witness their existence under some contraption built for the purpose of witnessing them. Physicists can predict their reaction to certain stimuli. Ah a thought! The ability to predict conveys mastery or dominion over the object of prediction.

What truths are self-evident? The senses are not infallible, and by association, external evidence is also not infallible for all external evidence must pass through the senses to reach my consciousness. So what are the truths that are self-evident? That does not necessitate external evidence to be true? But still, this is if I am to believe consciousness is infallible. In the end all my truths are assumptions. Fallible evidence conveys to my fallible consciousness that I am able to predict the outcome of some such thing with high rate of success. So that must be truth. Is this truth? Or just as good as it gets?

Then what of things I cannot predict and witness the accuracy of my prediction? Like what happened at the beginning of time? Or what it's like to be outside the "sphere"? Is it even possible to ever speak of such things without a touch of lunacy?

Perhaps I should pause here and explain the "sphere". The "sphere" is anything and everything that I can perceive with my senses, from the beginning of my consciousness till the end of my consciousness. By that definition I can never really have any idea what is going on outside that sphere beside some very wild and probably highly inaccurate imaginations.